But I've heard Sambo used as a derogatory term. I've heard gay used in demeaning context. We've seen it in our movies, we've heard it in our music, in our books, we've seen it in the news.

I've never heard "Redskins" used as a derogatory term. Not in the movies, not in books, not in music, not in the news.

I can probably go up to the Dakotas and find several Native Americans up there that have never heard the term "porch monkey". Does that make it any less offensive? Of course not.

When using the term "redskin" to refer to Native Americans it IS derogatory.

Just because you personally haven't hear it that way doesn't change that.

As I said before most of us don't live in areas where there is a large population of Native Americans so we only hear the word "redskin" when referring to that football team that plays in DC.

However if you lived in the Dakotas, Montana or any other state where there are large populations of Native Americans and often racial tension between them and other races you would hear that word used in a totally different context.

You might hear things like "That store is run by a bunch of redskins".

"That girl is a redskin lover", referring to a white girl who dates Native Americans.

"Those redskins are a bunch of drunks".

How in the world can you say that is not derogatory??

Quote:

Originally Posted by thunderkyss

This is like saying the Cleveland Indians should change their mascot because Native Americans find it offensive. Their mascot isn't doing anything that should be considered offensive. He looks authentic, proud, fierce, honorable. But because he's a "mascot" it's offensive?? I'm not buying it.

A local highschool deals with the same thing. They are the Indians. Their mascot does a war dance before the game, after every score, at half-time... someone said it was offensive to Native Americans & suggested they change their name & mascot.

It makes no sense.

I know some groups find all Native American macots offensive, however we are talking about the word "redskin" here, not indian, chief, etc. There is a HUGE difference between "redskin" and the rest. "Redskin" IS a racial slur.

Braves, Seminoles, Chiefs, Warriors, Blackhawks to me seem to more honor them than degrade them.

Zulus were brave warriors too. However if a professional team tried to name themselves the Zulus, had a mascot with the typical Zulu look (bone in nose, spear, etc), I would believe the NAACP would protest that.

However if you lived in the Dakotas, Montana or any other state where there are large populations of Native Americans and often racial tension between them and other races you would hear that word used in a totally different context.

You might hear things like "That store is run by a bunch of redskins".

"That girl is a redskin lover", referring to a white girl who dates Native Americans.

"Those redskins are a bunch of drunks".

How in the world can you say that is not derogatory??

I'd like to hear it before I call it a slur. I'd like to see some evidence that the word has been used at all, I don't believe it has been used in any context other than associated with the football team.

Yes people could have said those things, used that word that way. But I don't think they did.

I'd like to hear it before I call it a slur. I'd like to see some evidence that the word has been used at all, I don't believe it has been used in any context other than associated with the football team.

Yes people could have said those things, used that word that way. But I don't think they did.

There are newspaper articles in the link I provided earlier that use it in a very disparaging light. L Frank Baum, who wrote The Wizard of Oz, penned this after Wounded Knee:

Quote:

Sitting Bull, most renowned Sioux of modern history, is dead.

He was not a Chief, but without Kingly lineage he arose from a lowly position to the greatest Medicine Man of his time, by virtue of his shrewdness and daring.

He was an Indian with a white man's spirit of hatred and revenge for those who had wronged him and his. In his day he saw his son and his tribe gradually driven from their possessions: forced to give up their old hunting grounds and espouse the hard working and uncongenial avocations of the whites. And these, his conquerors, were marked in their dealings with his people by selfishness, falsehood and treachery. What wonder that his wild nature, untamed by years of subjection, should still revolt? What wonder that a fiery rage still burned within his breast and that he should seek every opportunity of obtaining vengeance upon his natural enemies.

The proud spirit of the original owners of these vast prairies inherited through centuries of fierce and bloody wars for their possession, lingered last in the bosom of Sitting Bull. With his fall the nobility of the Redskin is extinguished, and what few are left are a pack of whining curs who lick the hand that smites them. The Whites, by law of conquest, by justice of civilization, are masters of the American continent, and the best safety of the frontier settlements will be secured by the total annihilation of the few remaining Indians. Why not annihilation? Their glory has fled, their spirit broken, their manhood effaced; better that they die than live the miserable wretches that they are. History would forget these latter despicable beings, and speak, in latter ages of the glory of these grand Kings of forest and plain that Cooper loved to heroize.

I'd like to hear it before I call it a slur. I'd like to see some evidence that the word has been used at all, I don't believe it has been used in any context other than associated with the football team.

Yes people could have said those things, used that word that way. But I don't think they did.

LOL, I don't really have "dog in this fight" (I do have Cherokee and some Cree ancestory, but I am white). I am telling you that I have a long time friend that lives in South Dakota. He's told me all sorts of stories about living around, going to school with, and working with Native Americans.

I am telling you that they use the word "redskin" and it's not used as a compliment. I've heard him use it several times, especially after he's been drinking. Growing up there he's had some run ins with some from the local tribes and he doesn't always speaking fondly of them if you know what I mean.

He's one of those "rough around the edges" types. He's got a good heart but seems to always find trouble. When he was younger that often resulted in going to blows with "some drunk redskin" in a bar as he would say.

You said you have never heard the term "redskin" in a song. I assume you don't listen to Iron Maiden, however I just remembered that they used "redskin" in "Run to the Hills".

Quote:

White man came across the sea
He brought us pain and misery
He killed our tribes killed our creed
He took our game for his own need

We fought him hard we fought him well
Out on the plains we gave him hell
But many came too much for Cree
Oh will we ever be set free?

Riding through dust clouds and barren wastes
Galloping hard on the plainsChasing the redskins back to their holes
Fighting them at their own game
Murder for freedom the stab in the back
Women and children are cowards attack

Run to the hills, run for your lives
Run to the hills, run for your lives

Soldier blue in the barren wastes
Hunting and killing their game
Raping the women and wasting the men
The only good Injuns are tame
Selling them whiskey and taking their gold
Enslaving the young and destroying the old

Like I said, if you're not THAT minority, then you don't know what it is they deal with and what it is they hear. You don't know how they're attacked and what they find demeaning.

Even different sections of that demographic living in different places will be offended by different words because they're attacked by different words where they live. Some Native American in Tennessee might get hit with the "redskin" word as derogatory but not feel that "brave" or "navajo" or whatever is derogatory but a Native American in Oklahoma or Alaska or California might and not be offended by "redskin".

When we finally complete the epic book of words that offend "someone, somewhere" and forever rule all of those words out completely I guess everyone will be happy and be able to get past the transgressions committed against their ancestors a century or more ago. What a happy day that will be when all racism is magically eliminated by walling off every word that ever made someone upset. I can hardly wait for the day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Pencil Neck

Someone in the Majority telling someone in the Minority what they should and shouldn't be offended by is a dangerous position because it allows the Majority to minimize what the Minority is feeling. "Oh, you shouldn't be offended by that! I didn't mean anything by it." is a perfect defense for a racist to take.

Sometimes the majority is right about something but we'll never know that because in every single instance that the majority points out something we learn that they are on shaky ground and most likely just "bad" because there are more of them than there are whoever is butt-hurt at that particular point in time. Sometimes "I didn't mean anything by it" is entirely true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Pencil Neck

And to be honest, I've defended myself with almost those exact same words when I offended a Jewish guy by making a JAP joke once. I'm not a racist [Again, exactly what a racist would say] and several of my Jewish friends came to my defense because they thought it was funny and non-offensive and they knew I didn't mean anything by it. But the bottom line is I said something and offended that guy... and I should have apologized. I didn't because I thought he was being overly sensitive and silly. That's the problem here: if someone gets offended, they're offended and telling them to chill out and grow up just compounds the problem.

I don't think any of us have never done that. It's a common enough story and when I've done that I've just said "I'm sorry. I did not mean to offend". I was sincere and expected to be taken at my word then. At what point did we decide collectively as a people that if you transgressed you had to apologize but if someone apologized to you it was ok to stay upset because well, you were just too offended to get over it. When I encounter someone who is too offended to reason with, too offended to get on with life I feel sorry for them because that's entirely their problem. Go through life looking for people who are out to offend you and you're sure to find them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Pencil Neck

BUT...

Until the larger community started to feel that the n-word was offensive, people continued to use it in every day life. People had to realize that it was offensive to other people and feel bad about offending them before anything changed. (Unlike me not feeling bad about making that JAP joke.)

The same thing's probably going to happen here. Some American Indians feel offended; some don't. But until a lot more people (both Indian and non-Indian) start to realize and CARE that it's offensive to some people, it isn't going to change.

It's a complicated issue.

It does not have to be. We could probably get a law passed if we got enough offended people together and just rename the NFL teams "1" through "32" and then all we'd have to do is settle the team colors problem. Black is racist, so's Yellow, and I think we've established that Red is going to be a problem....

People just need to get over it and get behind what the word means today. I mean, it's "Redskins" not "Cowboys". Where are people's priorities here?

Not for some words.
There's political correctness and there's being just plain mean. And I figure that what you were referring to when you said it depends on how you say it. If one is educated enough to know the origin of certain terms and the hate and hurt associated with their origins and original meanings, why would ever do that?
Some call it political correctness, I just see it as good manners.

I guess that depends on whether you consider it disparaging to call Native Americans curs deserving of annihilation who are subservient to the master race of the white man.

I do.

Differentiate Dan. I said his use of the word redskin was not disparaging not that he did not have a disparaging opinion of Indians. It is two different things.

In this case from what you quoted you have missed on both points as he is disparaging of white people and admiring Indians of old. His only disparagement of Indians is those who are left and do not live up to the old standard.

Differentiate Dan. I said his use of the word redskin was not disparaging not that he did not have a disparaging opinion of Indians. It is two different things.

He said it in an editorial advocating genocide. I can't think of many more disparaging ways to use the term.

Was it disparaging when my grandmother said that "those ****** babies can sure sing" when she saw an R+B band on Saturday Night Live? I mean she was complimenting them, right?

Or what if someone wrote the same thing after MLK died, pointing out that with his death:
"the nobility of the ****** is extinguished, and what few are left are a pack of whining curs who lick the hand that smites them. The Whites, by law of conquest, by justice of civilization, are masters of the American continent, and the best safety of the frontier settlements will be secured by the total annihilation of the few remaining blacks. Why not annihilation? Their glory has fled, their spirit broken, their manhood effaced; better that they die than live the miserable wretches that they are. History would forget these latter despicable beings, and speak, in latter ages of the glory of these grand Kings of forest and plain that Cooper loved to heroize."

Insulting or not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by infantrycak

In this case from what you quoted you have missed on both points as he is disparaging of white people and admiring Indians of old. His only disparagement of Indians is those who are left and do not live up to the old standard.

Sounds an awful lot like old white guys that miss the days when ******s and spics knew their place. I think that's a racist attitude. Do you?

Change the same paragraph to have white men after Genghis Khan took over significant white controlled territories. It still would not make white an innate disparaging term.

You still failed to address that the use of the word and the opinion of the people are two separate issues. My saying "white men are intellectually inferior" makes me a racist. It does not make the word "white" racist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan B.

Sounds an awful lot like old white guys that miss the days when ******s and spics knew their place. I think that's a racist attitude. Do you?

Change the same paragraph to have white men after Genghis Khan took over significant white controlled territories. It still would not make white an innate disparaging term.

You still failed to address that the use of the word and the opinion of the people are two separate issues. My saying "white men are intellectually inferior" makes me a racist. It does not make the word "white" racist.

I don't consider the word "redskin" to be the same as the words "black" or "white." Neither does the country. If we did, your choice on the Census would be Black, White, Redskin, Hawaiian, Asian. Instead we call them Black, White, American Indian, etc. If it were merely a descriptive term like you claim, it would be used in the same fashion. Police and the media don't describe Indian subjects as redskins -- but they do describe others as black or white. I can't think of a single part of society where the word "redskin" is used in just a plain descriptive fashion the way "black" or "white" is. Can you?

"Redskin" was used throughout the English-speaking world (and in equivalent transliterations in Europe) throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as a common term of reference for indigenous Americans. However, the more commonly used term from early colonization through the twentieth century was "Indian", perpetuating Columbus' error. [9] The first use of red-skin or red indian may have been limited to specific groups that used red pigments to decorate their bodies, such as the Beothuk people of Newfoundland who painted their bodies with red ochre. [10] Redskin is first recorded in the late 17th century and was applied to the Algonquian peoples generally, but specifically to the Delaware (who lived in what is now southern New York State and New York City, New Jersey, and eastern Pennsylvania). Redskin referred not to the natural skin color of the Delaware, but to their use of vermilion face paint and body paint. [11] The indigenous peoples of the continent had no common identity, and referred to themselves using individual tribal names, which is also preferred to the present day. Group identity for Native Americans only emerged during the late 18th and early 19th century, in the context of negotiations between many tribes signing a single treaty with the United States. [12]

I don't consider the word "redskin" to be the same as the words "black" or "white."

Are you seriously implying "skin" is not implied whenever anyone says white or black?

Quote:

Neither does the country.

Says you even when polls of Indians doesn't agree.

Quote:

If we did, your choice on the Census would be Black, White, Redskin, Hawaiian, Asian. Instead we call them Black, White, American Indian, etc. If it were merely a descriptive term like you claim, it would be used in the same fashion. Police and the media don't describe Indian subjects as redskins -- but they do describe others as black or white. I can't think of a single part of society where the word "redskin" is used in just a plain descriptive fashion the way "black" or "white" is. Can you?

It also is not used as a common pejorative. You don't walk into a Walmart and hear rednecks commonly saying some crap about GD redskins holding up the lines but you sure do with blacks. Outside of a few narrow areas (as Hookem points out maybe South Dakota and all 5 people up there) redskin is not hurled around in a negative fashion. It is a word which simply doesn't come up. Fact is for 99% of people on this MB the word redskin won't come up in conversation in the next year other than in reference to the team.

Oh and yeah the census should decide this. From the census bureau:

Quote:

White – A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.

I doubt many folks would call this person white because they are from north africa.

You don't walk into a Walmart and hear rednecks commonly saying some crap about GD redskins holding up the lines but you sure do with blacks. Outside of a few narrow areas (as Hookem points out maybe South Dakota and all 5 people up there) redskin is not hurled around in a negative fashion. It is a word which simply doesn't come up. Fact is for 99% of people on this MB the word redskin won't come up in conversation in the next year other than in reference to the team.

Again, because we don't live around many reservations. However I just don't get why you think the word is OK because you personally don't hear it where you live.

What does that have to do with anything? Go walk into an Indian reservation and start referring to them as redskins and see what happens.

If it's not offensive and a harmless, descriptive word as you claim then you'll be fine. However I wouldn't put money on that.

BTW, I don't hear the word n*gger at all in Spain, does that make it OK because the word n*gger doesn't come up in conversations over there?

What does that have to do with anything? Go walk into an Indian reservation and start referring to them as redskins and see what happens.

If it's not offensive and a harmless, descriptive word as you claim then you'll be fine. However I wouldn't put money on that.

I would put money you are wrong. We are back to context matters.

Indian is harmless or not depending on how it is used as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hookem Horns

BTW, I don't hear the word n*gger at all in Spain, does that make it OK because the word n*gger doesn't come up in conversations over there?

So now we are off to different languages and different cultures? I have never heard "f(*king Vince Young nut hugger" in Antartica. Does that change the intent of how it is said anywhere in the world? Context matters.

Indian and redskin are two different things. So, you really think you can call an American Indian "redskin" without having an issue? LOL, I would love to see that.

However since we probably will never be in South Dakota or a similar state at the same time I will call my body tomorrow and get his take on that.

Quote:

So now we are off to different languages and different cultures? I have never heard "f(*king Vince Young nut hugger" in Antartica. Does that change the intent of how it is said anywhere in the world? Context matters.

Yes, you brought up different cultures. You said you never heard "redskin" used derogatory before and don't hear that term in Walmart where you live.

It's because you live in a different part of the country that is not too dialed in on the Amercian Indian culture. It's no different.

WTH does Vince Young have to to do with this?? I am sure most American Indians in South Dakota know he sucks too.

I brought up Spain because I spend a lot of time there, I know there is a lot of racism over there however that had nothing to do with my point.

You are coming off as "well that term isn't racist because I have never heard of it before, etc, so it shouldn't be to anyone else".

So?? Are you the one that decides what's acceptable or not?? You writing those rules?

I bet you have never heard the term "panchito" either. That's what the Spanish use when referring to Latinos from the America's. A "panchito" in Spain is a little peanut snack and they say immigrants from Latin America look like little brown peanuts.

Next time I hear that term over there and some Ecuadorian gets upset I will tell them that it's OK because Infantrycak in Houston has never heard that term before so it must not be derogatory.

This thread has floored me. I am really surprised by the responses here.